1841—In November this year, in the Queen’s Bench, a rule _nisi_ for a criminal information, was granted against the _Worcestershire Chronicle_, on the application of W. H. Ricketts, Esq., for a libel in that paper imputing to him jobbing and interested motives in disposing of the public money to be laid out in building the Droitwich Police Station. Upon the proprietors of the _Chronicle_ admitting that they had been misled and offering an apology, Mr. Ricketts consented to the discharge of the rule. The information on which the article complained of by Mr. Ricketts was written, was supplied by Mr. George Ellins, a brother magistrate; and as he refused to pay any of the costs which the proprietors of the _Chronicle_ had incurred, they inserted another article, charging Mr. Ellins with having misled them in the matter. This brought another rule _nisi_ upon them from Mr. Ellins, who affirmed that he did not volunteer the statement to Mr. Arrowsmith, and had especially told him that what he did say was not for publication. The argument against the rule did not come on till November, when Mr. Sergeant Talfourd showed cause for the _Chronicle_, and the Solicitor General supported the rule on behalf of Mr. Ellins. Lord Denman said it was absurd to suppose that Mr. Ellins gave the information to Mr. Arrowsmith for any other purpose than that of publication; and the rule was discharged with costs. 1842—At the Lent Assizes was tried THE MARQUIS OF ANGLESEA _v._ LORD HATHERTON, a cause more interesting from the rank of the parties interested, and the right at stake, than from any attractiveness in the subject or the evidence. It was an action to stop the noble defendant from working coal mines on certain copyhold property belonging to the latter at Cannock, in Staffordshire; and turned upon the question whether Lord Anglesea, as lord of the manor of Cannock, had right to the minerals. Sir Thomas Wilde, Sergeant Ludlow, Mr. Alexander, and the Honourable Mr. Talbot, were retained for the defendant; and the Solicitor-General (Sir William Follett), Mr. Richards, Q.C., Mr. Whateley, Q.C., and Mr. Whitmore, for the plaintiff. A great number of witnesses were called on either side, to prove rights and customs, and to perplex the jury; and ultimately, after a trial of two days, a verdict was found for the plaintiff, with nominal damages. The verdict created much surprise. 1842—JULY 20—A Court of Inquiry holden by Mr. Under Sheriff Gillam and a special jury, to assess damages in the case POWELL _v._ PERRINS. This was an action to recover damages for the seduction of plaintiff’s daughter, plaintiff being a land surveyor at Hagley, and defendant a chain maker, living near Stourbridge. £500 damages given for the plaintiff.